Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

What about the right to live? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theBOON)
    Continuing with the other discussion on General Discussion this evening; what do you think about the rights of the foetus?

    Today's society takes it for granted that because the baby is inside the womb it's the mothers right, but I say, it her responsibility. Just because she's caring for it doesn't mean that she has the right to kill it. The pilot doesn't have the right to kill his passengers even though just as the mother, they are completely dependant on him. In a similar way a mother doesn't have the right to murder her newborn son just because he's completely dependant on her or because he's not welcomed; and rightfully so that's illegal. So why do we let this happen for unborn lives? Just like the mother of the newly born baby the pregnant mother too has the responsibility of her offspring but not the right over him.

    EDIT: Some posters need a bit of incite on abortion v.s. contraception. They are not the same thing! Contraception is reducing the possibility of conceiving a life while abortion is killing one. And by life here I intend proper human life not life as in a living cell. Possibility of life isn't life and it isn't the same thing. It's almost like temptation and sin (I know i should compare the miracle of life to sin but I can't think of anything else at the moment ); temptation is thing wrong while sin is doing wrong. They both are wrong because your contemplating doing a wrong thing or actually doing a wrong thing but no one will be prosecuted for the desire to strangle his room-mate who's getting laid and is purposely make it clear throughout the whole hall, while he's trying to study for his annuals, tomorrow.

    EDIT: Who would have that that in 2010 we would be debating the right of the mother to kill her children. Doesn't that sound even minimally ####ed up?? Not to mention that this isn't at all necessary. It's not like the mother will die. She, did have sex, knowing that there is a pregnancy risk and most probably she did it in a risky way just for the sake of pleasure. So now that she meets up the consequences, she'll just kill it? Wasn't it her fault? Shouldn't she carry on the consequences for the 9 months to follow? That's not fair for the baby. He was brought to the world as an unwanted by product and then he's killed again before having the chance to experience it!

    And for those saying that s/he'll have a though life. That a flawed argument. He/She'll have a though childhood. What about the rest of his life? His/Her twenties, thirties, forties....etc Do you think that it's for his/her benefit to kill him/her to prevent him/her a though childhood and prevent him/her from experiencing the rest of his/her life? Besides it's not given that s/he'll have a though childhood and life is though for everyone, but that doesn't prevent us from enjoying it (like his mother was while risking pregnancy).

    EDIT: When ever I ask this question many avoid it, why? Question: "Given we don't know when a bunch of living cells become a human life, should we stay on the safe side of things, instead of risking to kill millions (billions with time) of human lives?". This given we will never be able to determine the actual point at which such change happens but I hope we one day will be able. Since then I think it's reasonable to stay on the safe side.
    You only get the "right to life" if you are a person. A fetus is not a person, therefore it does not get such a right.

    What about the billions of sperm cells I just unloaded all over my computer screen? Why should a fetus be more entitled to human rights than they are?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theBOON)
    In fact I'm rightfully hoping science will be able to simulate an artificial womb for any unwanted pregnancies to be transferred to. If the life survives and develops well than that would be a much better solution for abortion and perhaps made law.
    In such a case, you would have millions and millions of orphans. Do you think that is a good outcome?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What I don't understand is that sperm isn't sacred (lots of it goes to waste every day), egg cells aren't sacred (go to waste every month), but as soon as they join up BAM! magic happens and it's sacred. It's difficult to say exactly when a foetus becomes a human but as far as I'm aware the laws in all countries where abortion is legal don't allow abortion past the point where a baby could possibly survive anyway.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PhoebeZeitgeist)
    What I don't understand is that sperm isn't sacred (lots of it goes to waste every day), egg cells aren't sacred (go to waste every month), but as soon as they join up BAM! magic happens and it's sacred. It's difficult to say exactly when a foetus becomes a human but as far as I'm aware the laws in all countries where abortion is legal don't allow abortion past the point where a baby could possibly survive anyway.
    Yep, very true.

    A fetus is always human btw. So are sperm and egg cells. They are all human life. If you were wondering when a fetus becomes a person... well, it doesn't. It becomes a baby first and then it becomes a person at about 1.5 - 4-years-old.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    No, that child is a consequence of the females actions.


    And what of the role of the male? Why solely penalise females for an act in which two people are complicit?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    And what of the role of the male? Why solely penalise females for an act in which two people are complicit?


    If you have a check through my responses to Antonia you will find i advocate the male having to share in the consequences. But ultimately it is the female who will have to carry the child. So really it is down to her. But yes i agree with you. A child is as much a consequence of the males actions as the females, and the law shoud reflect that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tetrahydro)
    Yep, very true.

    A fetus is always human btw. So are sperm and egg cells.

    No, they really aren't. :eyebrow:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theBOON)
    I don't agree with any of your opinions. Nobody has the right to mess with human life. That's my stance. Whatever happens live and let live. An unwanted pregnancy is merely another sad incident of life. That doesn't mean that you're allowed to kill because it happened.

    Then you'll argue that an embryo is not a human life.....etc Since there is no scientific evidence indicating the beginning of a human life we should rightly so put the limit at the time interval when uncertinity beings or otherwise we'll be risking lives.

    Besides this argument in itself doesn't make sense to mean. The value of a human life and the reason for abortion aren't on par with each other.
    what value does human life or any life have?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    No, they really aren't. :eyebrow:
    If human fetuses, human sperm and human eggs aren't human, what are they?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    If you have a check through my responses to Antonia you will find i advocate the male having to share in the consequences. But ultimately it is the female who will have to carry the child. So really it is down to her. But yes i agree with you. A child is as much a consequence of the males actions as the females, and the law shoud reflect that.
    Indeed. A primary reason why abortion should be legalised.

    How exactly should the law reflect that?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theBOON)
    People have no right over life. Nobody has a right over life. Rights are part of a society. Our morally says that every individual in our society has a right to live. Every individual want to live and it's the most valuable thing for everybody; therefore it's seen as a right of every individual.

    I hope you agree with that if you want to live in a society.
    But why do people have a right to life if they have no right over life.

    Morales are subjective and imo have no bearing in any argument because of this.

    I don't believe anyone in our society has a right to live, they do live but i don't think they have a right to it, if they die ebcause of someone else its just a turn of events.

    Also life isn't the most important thing to everybody otherwise you wouldn't have people risking their lives for money or fame or thrills or any other reason people put their life at risk so that whole sentence was wrong.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tetrahydro)
    If human fetuses, human sperm and human eggs aren't human, what are they?


    Fetuses are human. But sperm and eggs are seperate cells with one single purpose. If you are going for that argument then according to you blood cells are human life and so are nerve cells.


    I am interested into what your definition of 'human life' is?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Greens)
    In such a case, you would have millions and millions of orphans. Do you think that is a good outcome?
    I've had that argument with them! Apparently there are hundreds of thousands of couples who want to adopt. (Not replied to when I said I doubt there's 200,000 a year.)

    Then there are also people who want them for the benefits. Nice.

    Also, it is better that they grow up in care and have a sh!t first 18 years because they have the chance to make something of themselves when they are older. That pretty much sums up what was said
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    Indeed. A primary reason why abortion should be legalised.

    No, pregnancy is the consequence of her action. Why should a human life be terminated because she is inconvenienced for nine months?

    I could say that pedestrians should be killed becuase i want to drive while inebriated.

    Rights mean responsibilities. if you can't face up to the responsibilities then don't excersize your rights. That is a staple of free society.

    How exactly should the law reflect that?

    Support for the female why she carries the child? Accepting that he is equally responsible? Giving hima choice as to whether it is adopted or not?

    If you want the male to have equal responsibility then you must also be willing to cede to him equal right in deciding if the child lives or dies. You can't have it all your own way.
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by theBOON)
    People have no right over life. Nobody has a right over life. Rights are part of a society. Our morally says that every individual in our society has a right to live. Every individual want to live and it's the most valuable thing for everybody; therefore it's seen as a right of every individual.
    You say "our morality", but of course different people have different moral beliefs. If one cannot justify why "every individual in our society has a right to live" then you are not on a firm footing. Your reasoning - namely that every individual wants to live, and therefore it's seen as a right - doesn't seemingly encompass the unborn or very young: it is questionable whether they want to live because their mental capacity may not be sufficient to have those kinds of desires. Can they be said to want to live any more than, say, a cow? One needs to distinguish between life, human life, and personhood. What are the rights that each of those categories deserve and why? It's not entirely obvious why foetuses have any more of a right to life than many animals.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Fetuses are human. But sperm and eggs are seperate cells with one single purpose. If you are going for that argument then according to you blood cells are human life and so are nerve cells.
    Yep, that's what I think. Perhaps, I'm being pedantic.

    But my point is, a human life is often distinct from a person. Something shouldn't immediately be entitled to human rights just because it's a human.

    Why should a fetus' life be protected by human rights while much more intelligent beings such as adults of the great apes or the dolphin should not be entitled to such rights? What the hell makes us so special that we protect our own, even if we don't have limbs or a complete set of organs, let alone a self-aware mind?!

    If you cannot ask for the rights, you do not deserve them. Rights are there to protect those who can think for themselves. Otherwise, rights would have never existed in the first place.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hay.hay)
    I've had that argument with them! Apparently there are hundreds of thousands of couples who want to adopt. (Not replied to when I said I doubt there's 200,000 a year.)
    Exactly. There are many people who want to adopt babies, but the supply would easily outnumber the demand if abortions were replaced with artificial wombs. There would be countless orphans.

    (Original post by hay.hay)
    Then there are also people who want them for the benefits. Nice.
    True.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I will always wonder why so many pro-lifers have seem to have no qualms about how many "lives" they are extinguishing everytime they swat a fly, lay a mousetrap, tread on an ant or even disinfect a kitchen worktop - yet it's apparently wrong to abort something that for the first few months of its existance is only a small group of cells - virtually nothing in comparison to the ant or the fly, for example.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tetrahydro)
    But my point is, a human life is often distinct from a person. Something shouldn't immediately be entitled to human rights just because it's a human.

    Why not? And lets keep rights simple for the sake of this argument. When i say essential rights i mean the right to self ownership only.

    Why should a fetus' life be protected by human rights while much more intelligent beings such as great apes or the dolphin should not be entitled to such rights?

    Because the great apes and the dolphins are not human, the fetus is. Human beings are the only species on the planet capable of understanding and respecting individual rights. As they are a uniquely human concept.

    Just because a certain human being may be temporarily incapable of reciprocating individual rights, doesn't mean they should be removed. If a chair is broken you do not start calling it a melon or an ant. It is still a chair, as a human remains a human regardless of his current state.


    What the hell makes us so special that we protect our own,
    Because otherwise as a species we would have died out millions of years ago. looking after 'your own' is not only essential for survival, it is essential for evolution.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Why not? And lets keep rights simple for the sake of this argument. When i say essential rights i mean the right to self ownership only.
    Because human rights are there to protect those who have the capacity to feel injustice. Not all humans can, only people who have met the criteria of being a person can.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Because the great apes and the dolphins are not human, the fetus is. Human beings are the only species on the planet capable of understanding and respecting individual rights. As they are a uniquely human concept.
    Lol, try explaining it to a fetus.

    You've proved my point entirely there. You only deserve human rights if you are capable of understanding them.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Just because a certain human being may be temporarily incapable of reciprocating individual rights, doesn't mean they should be removed. If a chair is broken you do not start calling it a melon or an ant. It is still a chair, as a human remains a human regardless of his current state.
    I already said, I don't care if something is human. I will give anything what is conventionally considered human rights as long as it meets the criteria of personhood. If a dog came up and asked me to protect it, I would try my best to, because, with the ability to grasp and use language, one would expect, it is inherently capable of experiencing the suffering that human rights are there to protect us from. I can empathise with it much more than I can with a fetus who knows nothing about anything.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Because otherwise as a species we would have died out millions of years ago. looking after 'your own' is not only essential for survival, it is essential for evolution.
    Actually, our primary function is to maintain our own genes. Naturally, we have no concern for others of our species, unless they are directly related to us, becaus ethey carry our genes. This whole, "look out for your own" is an entirely primitive concept. It is one that is often used to justify ridiculous concepts such as racism and eugenics.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.